DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction/Game Search

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction/Game Search Introduction to AI Techniques Game Search, Minimax, and Alpha Beta Pruning June 8, 2009 Introduction One of the biggest areas of research in modern Artificial Intelligence is in making computer players for popular games. It turns out that games that most humans can become reasonably good at after some practice, such as GO, Chess, or Checkers, are actually difficult for computers to solve. In exploring how we could make machines play the games we play, we are forced to ask ourselves how we play those games. Although it seems that humans use some notion of “intelligence” in playing a game like chess, our approaches in solving such games have not progressed much farther than the sort of brute force approaches that we experimented with in the 50s. Unfor- tunately, present computer players usually rely on some sort of search over possible game outcomes to find the optimal move, rather than using what we would deem intelligent behavior. In this discussion we will see some of the ideas behind these computer play- ers, as well as future directions the field might take, and how these computer approaches can both help us learn to play the games better as well as point out some fundamental differences between human play and machine play. As a quick time line to show how (not very) far we have come since Claude Shannon’s (a famous MIT professor, the father of Information Theory, etc.) Programming a Computer Playing Chess, 1948 : • 1948 Claude Shannon 1 SP.268 AI Techniques For Solving Games • 1951 Alan Turing works out a plan on paper for a chess-playing com- puter program. • 1966-1967 Mac Hack 6, developed at MIT, first chess program to beat a person in tournament play • 1997 Deep Blue beats Kasparov, the reigning world chess champion at the time, in a best out of 6 match. This was seen as a landmark in the chess program world, but really Deep Blue was just like previous chess playing machines with bigger and better computing power, and no more “intelligence” than any previous model. Well-known Players The most popular recent game to be solved is checkers, which had up to 200 processors running night and day from 1989 to 2007. Checkers has 5 ∗ 1020 possible positions on its 8 by 8 board. It is now known that perfect play by each side results in a draw. You can play around with the database on the Chinook project’s website: www.cs.ualberta.ca/ chinook/. The game is strongly solved, and for every move Chinook tells you whether it leads to a winning strategy, a losing strategy, or a draw. Another famous computer player is Deep Blue, who beat chess world cham- pion Garry Kasparov in 1997, which was capable of evaluating 200 million positions per second. How To Solve a Game? What if we just give the computer simple rules to follow in what is known as a knowledge based approach. This is how a lot of beginner and sometimes advanced human players might play certain games, and in some games it actually works (we’ll take a closer look using Connect Four next time). Take the following rules for tic-tac-toe, for instance. You give it the following instructions to blindly follow in order of importance: 1. If there is a winning move, take it. 2. If your opponent has a winning move, take the move so he can’t take it. 2 SP.268 AI Techniques For Solving Games 3. Take the center square over edges and corners. 4. Take corner squares over edges. 5. Take edges if they are the only thing available. Let’s see what happens when the computer plays this game (picture taken from Victor Allis’s Connect Four Thesis): This approach clearly will not always work. There are so many exceptions to rules that for a game like chess enumerating all the possible rules to follow would be completely infeasible. The next logical option to try is search. If a player could predict how the other player would respond to the next move, and how he himself would respond to that, and how the next player would respond next, etc., then clearly our player would have a huge advantage and would be able to play the best move possible. So why don’t we just build our computer players to search all the possible next moves down the game tree (which we will see in more detail soon) and chooses the best move from these results? I can think of at least two of many good reasons: • Complexity - As we will see below, if a game offers players b different possible moves each turn, and the game takes d moves total, then the possible number of games is around bd. That’s an exponential search space, not looking good! For tic-tac-toe, there are about 255,168 possible games. Definitely reasonable. But for chess, this number is around 3640, something like more than the number of particles in the universe. No good. • It’s not intelligence! Brute computational force is not exactly intell- gience. Not very exciting science here, at least not for us theoretical 3 SP.268 AI Techniques For Solving Games people. Maybe exciting for the hardware guys that build faster pro- cessors and smaller memory to that we have the computational power to solve these games, but other than that not very cool... It would be much more exciting to come up with a “thinking” player. So what should we do? We can’t use just simple rules, but only using search doesn’t really work out either. What if we combine both? This is what is done most of the time. Part of the game tree is searched, and then an evaluation, a kind of heuristic (to be discussed more soon) is used. This approach works relatively well, and there is a good deal of intelligence needed in designing the evaluation functions of games. Games as Trees For most cases the most convenient way to represent game play is on a graph. We will use graphs with nodes representing game “states” (game position, score, etc.) and edges representing a move by a player that moves the game from one state to another: Using these conventions, we can turn the problem of solving a game into a version of graph search, although this problem differs from other types of graph search. For instance, in many cases we want to find a single state in a graph, and the path from our start state to that state, whereas in game search we are not looking for a single path, but a winning move. The path we take might change, since we cannot control what our opponent does. Below is a small example of a game graph. The game starts in some ini- tial state at the root of the game tree. To get to the next level, player one chooses a move, A, B, C, or D. To get to the next level, player two makes a move, etc. Each level of the tree is called a ply. 4 SP.268 AI Techniques For Solving Games So if we are player one, our goal is to find what move to take to try to ensure we reach one of the “W” states. Note that we cannot just learn a strategy and specify it beforehand, because our opponent can do whatever it wants and mess up our plan. When we talk about game graphs some terms you might want to be familiar with are: • Branching factor (b) The number of outgoing edges from a single node. In a game graph, this corresponds to the number of possible moves a player can make. So for instance, if we were graphing tic-tac-toe, the branching factor would be 9 (or less, since after a person moves the possible moves are limited, but you get the idea) • Ply A level of the game tree. When a player makes a move the game tree moves to the next ply. • Depth (d) How many plys we need to go down the game tree, or how many moves the game takes to complete. In tic-tac-toe this is probably somewhere around 6 or 7 (just made that up...). In chess this is around 40. 5 SP.268 AI Techniques For Solving Games Minimax The most used game tree search is the minimax algorithm. To get a sense for how this works, consider the following: Helen and Stavros are playing a game. The rules of this game are very mysterious, but we know that each state involves Helen having a certain number of drachmas at each state. Poor Stavros never gets any drachmas, but he doesn’t want Helen to get any richer and keep bossing him around. So Helen wants to maximize her drachmas, while Stavros wants to minimize them. What should each player do? At each level Helen will choose the move leading to the greatest value, and Stavros will move to the minimum-valued state, hence the name “minimax.” Formally, the minimax algorithm is described by the following pseudocode: def max-value(state,depth): if (depth == 0): return value(state) v = -infinite for each s in SUCCESSORS(state): v = MAX(v,min-value(s,depth-1)) return v def min-value(state,depth): if (depth == 0): return value(state) v = infinite for each s in SUCCESSORS(state): v = MIN(v,max-value(s,depth-1)) return v 6 SP.268 AI Techniques For Solving Games We will play out this game on the following tree: The values at the leaves are the actual values of games corresponding to the paths leading to those nodes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preparation of Papers for R-ICT 2007
    Chess Puzzle Mate in N-Moves Solver with Branch and Bound Algorithm Ryan Ignatius Hadiwijaya / 13511070 Program Studi Teknik Informatika Sekolah Teknik Elektro dan Informatika Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl. Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132, Indonesia [email protected] Abstract—Chess is popular game played by many people 1. Any player checkmate the opponent. If this occur, in the world. Aside from the normal chess game, there is a then that player will win and the opponent will special board configuration that made chess puzzle. Chess lose. puzzle has special objective, and one of that objective is to 2. Any player resign / give up. If this occur, then that checkmate the opponent within specifically number of moves. To solve that kind of chess puzzle, branch and bound player is lose. algorithm can be used for choosing moves to checkmate the 3. Draw. Draw occur on any of the following case : opponent. With good heuristics, the algorithm will solve a. Stalemate. Stalemate occur when player doesn‟t chess puzzle effectively and efficiently. have any legal moves in his/her turn and his/her king isn‟t in checked. Index Terms—branch and bound, chess, problem solving, b. Both players agree to draw. puzzle. c. There are not enough pieces on the board to force a checkmate. d. Exact same position is repeated 3 times I. INTRODUCTION e. Fifty consecutive moves with neither player has Chess is a board game played between two players on moved a pawn or captured a piece. opposite sides of board containing 64 squares of alternating colors.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Chess Players Learn Computer Security?
    1 Should Chess Players Learn Computer Security? Gildas Avoine, Cedric´ Lauradoux, Rolando Trujillo-Rasua F Abstract—The main concern of chess referees is to prevent are indeed playing against each other, instead of players from biasing the outcome of the game by either collud- playing against a little girl as one’s would expect. ing or receiving external advice. Preventing third parties from Conway’s work on the chess grandmaster prob- interfering in a game is challenging given that communication lem was pursued and extended to authentication technologies are steadily improved and miniaturized. Chess protocols by Desmedt, Goutier and Bengio [3] in or- actually faces similar threats to those already encountered in der to break the Feige-Fiat-Shamir protocol [4]. The computer security. We describe chess frauds and link them to their analogues in the digital world. Based on these transpo- attack was called mafia fraud, as a reference to the sitions, we advocate for a set of countermeasures to enforce famous Shamir’s claim: “I can go to a mafia-owned fairness in chess. store a million times and they will not be able to misrepresent themselves as me.” Desmedt et al. Index Terms—Security, Chess, Fraud. proved that Shamir was wrong via a simple appli- cation of Conway’s chess grandmaster problem to authentication protocols. Since then, this attack has 1 INTRODUCTION been used in various domains such as contactless Chess still fascinates generations of computer sci- credit cards, electronic passports, vehicle keyless entists. Many great researchers such as John von remote systems, and wireless sensor networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Learn Chess the Right Way
    Learn Chess the Right Way Book 5 Finding Winning Moves! by Susan Polgar with Paul Truong 2017 Russell Enterprises, Inc. Milford, CT USA 1 Learn Chess the Right Way Learn Chess the Right Way Book 5: Finding Winning Moves! © Copyright 2017 Susan Polgar ISBN: 978-1-941270-45-5 ISBN (eBook): 978-1-941270-46-2 All Rights Reserved No part of this book maybe used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. Published by: Russell Enterprises, Inc. PO Box 3131 Milford, CT 06460 USA http://www.russell-enterprises.com [email protected] Cover design by Janel Lowrance Front cover Image by Christine Flores Back cover photo by Timea Jaksa Contributor: Tom Polgar-Shutzman Printed in the United States of America 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Chapter 1 Quiet Moves to Checkmate 5 Chapter 2 Quite Moves to Win Material 43 Chapter 3 Zugzwang 56 Chapter 4 The Grand Test 80 Solutions 141 3 Learn Chess the Right Way Introduction Ever since I was four years old, I remember the joy of solving chess puzzles. I wrote my first puzzle book when I was just 15, and have published a number of other best-sellers since, such as A World Champion’s Guide to Chess, Chess Tactics for Champions, and Breaking Through, etc. With over 40 years of experience as a world-class player and trainer, I have developed the most effective way to help young players and beginners – Learn Chess the Right Way.
    [Show full text]
  • Yearbook.Indb
    PETER ZHDANOV Yearbook of Chess Wisdom Cover designer Piotr Pielach Typesetting Piotr Pielach ‹www.i-press.pl› First edition 2015 by Chess Evolution Yearbook of Chess Wisdom Copyright © 2015 Chess Evolution All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval sys- tem or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. isbn 978-83-937009-7-4 All sales or enquiries should be directed to Chess Evolution ul. Smutna 5a, 32-005 Niepolomice, Poland e-mail: [email protected] website: www.chess-evolution.com Printed in Poland by Drukarnia Pionier, 31–983 Krakow, ul. Igolomska 12 To my father Vladimir Z hdanov for teaching me how to play chess and to my mother Tamara Z hdanova for encouraging my passion for the game. PREFACE A critical-minded author always questions his own writing and tries to predict whether it will be illuminating and useful for the readers. What makes this book special? First of all, I have always had an inquisitive mind and an insatiable desire for accumulating, generating and sharing knowledge. Th is work is a prod- uct of having carefully read a few hundred remarkable chess books and a few thousand worthy non-chess volumes. However, it is by no means a mere compilation of ideas, facts and recommendations. Most of the eye- opening tips in this manuscript come from my refl ections on discussions with some of the world’s best chess players and coaches. Th is is why the book is titled Yearbook of Chess Wisdom: it is composed of 366 self-suffi - cient columns, each of which is dedicated to a certain topic.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Chess-Specific Improvements for Perturbation-Based Saliency Maps
    Some Chess-Specific Improvements for Perturbation-Based Saliency Maps Jessica Fritz Johannes Furnkranz¨ Johannes Kepler University Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria Linz, Austria [email protected] juffi@faw.jku.at Abstract—State-of-the-art game playing programs do not pro- vide an explanation for their move choice beyond a numerical score for the best and alternative moves. However, human players want to understand the reasons why a certain move is considered to be the best. Saliency maps are a useful general technique for this purpose, because they allow visualizing relevant aspects of a given input to the produced output. While such saliency maps are commonly used in the field of image classification, their adaptation to chess engines like Stockfish or Leela has not yet seen much work. This paper takes one such approach, Specific and Relevant Feature Attribution (SARFA), which has previously been proposed for a variety of game settings, and analyzes it specifically for the game of chess. In particular, we investigate differences with respect to its use with different chess Fig. 1: SARFA Example engines, to different types of positions (tactical vs. positional as well as middle-game vs. endgame), and point out some of the approach’s down-sides. Ultimately, we also suggest and evaluate a neural networks [19], there is also great demand for explain- few improvements of the basic algorithm that are able to address able AI models in other areas of AI, including game playing. some of the found shortcomings. An approach that has recently been proposed specifically for Index Terms—Explainable AI, Chess, Machine learning games and related agent architectures is specific and relevant feature attribution (SARFA) [15].1 It has been shown that it I.
    [Show full text]
  • Chess Composer Werner 2
    Studies with Stephenson I was delighted recently to receive another 1... Êg2 2. Îxf2+ Êh1 3 Í any#, or new book by German chess composer Werner 2... Êg3/ Êxh3 3 Îb3#. Keym. It is written in English and entitled Anything but Average , with the subtitle Now, for you to solve, is a selfmate by one ‘Chess Classics and Off-beat Problems’. of the best contemporary composers in the The book starts with some classic games genre, Andrei Selivanov of Russia. In a and combinations, but soon moves into the selfmate White is to play and force a reluctant world of chess composition, covering endgame Black to mate him. In this case the mate has studies, directmates, helpmates, selfmates, to happen on or before Black’s fifth move. and retroanalysis. Werner has made a careful selection from many sources and I was happy to meet again many old friends, but also Andrei Selivanov delighted to encounter some new ones. would happen if it were Black to move. Here 1st/2nd Prize, In the world of chess composition, 1... Êg2 2 Îxf2+ Êh1 3 Í any#; 2... Êg3/ Êxh3 Uralski Problemist, 2000 separate from the struggle that is the game, 3 Îb3# is clear enough, but after 1...f1 Ë! many remarkable things can happen and you there is no mate in a further two moves as will find a lot of them in this book. Among the 2 Ía4? is refuted by 2... Ëxb1 3 Íc6+ Ëe4+! . most remarkable are those that can occur in So, how to provide for this good defence? problems involving retroanalysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorian Van Den Heede Reinforcement Learning Teaching Computers To
    Teaching Computers to Play Chess Through Deep Reinforcement Learning Dorian Van den Heede Supervisors: Prof. dr. ir. Francis wyffels, Prof. dr. ir. Joni Dambre Counsellors: Ir. Jeroen Burms, Prof. dr. ir. Francis wyffels, Prof. dr. ir. Joni Dambre Master's dissertation submitted in order to obtain the academic degree of Master of Science in Computer Science Engineering Department of Electronics and Information Systems Chair: Prof. dr. ir. Rik Van de Walle Faculty of Engineering and Architecture Academic year 2016-2017 2 To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.
    [Show full text]
  • Chess Algorithms Theory and Practice
    Chess Algorithms Theory and Practice Rune Djurhuus Chess Grandmaster [email protected] / [email protected] October 4, 2018 1 Content • Complexity of a chess game • Solving chess, is it a myth? • History of computer chess • AlphaZero – the self-learning chess engine • Search trees and position evaluation • Minimax: The basic search algorithm • Negamax: «Simplified» minimax • Node explosion • Pruning techniques: – Alpha-Beta pruning – Analyze the best move first – Killer-move heuristics – Zero-move heuristics • Iterative deeper depth-first search (IDDFS) • Search tree extensions • Transposition tables (position cache) • Other challenges • Endgame tablebases • Demo 2 Complexity of a Chess Game • 20 possible start moves, 20 possible replies, etc. • 400 possible positions after 2 ply (half moves) • 197 281 positions after 4 ply • 713 positions after 10 ply (5 White moves and 5 Black moves) • Exponential explosion! • Approximately 40 legal moves in a typical position • There exists about 10120 possible chess games 3 Solving Chess, is it a myth? Assuming Moore’s law works in Chess Complexity Space the future • The estimated number of possible • Todays top supercomputers delivers 120 chess games is 10 1016 flops – Claude E. Shannon – 1 followed by 120 zeroes!!! • Assuming 100 operations per position 14 • The estimated number of reachable yields 10 positions per second chess positions is 1047 • Doing retrograde analysis on – Shirish Chinchalkar, 1996 supercomputers for 4 months we can • Modern GPU’s performs 1013 flops calculate 1021 positions.
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Underperformance in Chess
    Women’s Underperformance in Chess: The Armenian Female Champions by Ani Harutyunyan Presented to the Department of English & Communications in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts American University of Armenia Yerevan, Armenia May 22, 2019 WOMEN’S UNDERPERFORMANCE IN CHESS 2 Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...3 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..4-8 Literature review……………………………………………………………………………….9-15 Key terms and definitions…………………………………………………………………….16-17 Research questions……………………………………………………………………………….18 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….…19-20 Research findings and analysis……………………………………………………………….21-33 Limitations and avenues for future research……………………………………………………..34 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….35 References…………………………………………………………………………………....36-40 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………...41-48 WOMEN’S UNDERPERFORMANCE IN CHESS 3 Abstract Women have historically been underrepresented and less successful in chess as compared to men. Despite a few female players who have managed to qualify for the highest-rated chess tournaments and perform on an equal level with men, the chess world continues to be male- dominated. From time to time, different female players make achievements among men, but they fail to show consistent results. This project focuses on Armenia, which, despite its small population size, nearly three million people (Worldometers, 2019), ranks the seventh in the world by the average rating of its all-time top 10 players (Federations Ranking, n.d.-a) and the 18th by the rating of female players (Federations Ranking, n.d.-b). It represents the stories and concerns of the strongest Armenian female players of different age groups and aims to understand the reasons for their relatively less success in chess. WOMEN’S UNDERPERFORMANCE IN CHESS 4 Introduction In 1991, the world witnessed a young Hungarian girl breaking a record that had stood for 33 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Article
    Amu Ban 201 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Review Article A Chronology of Computer Chess and its Literature Hans J. Berliner Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A. on While our main objective in this article is to review a spate of recent books surveying computer chess, we believe this can best be done in the context of the field as a whole, and pointing outvaluable contributions to the literature,both past consider and present. We have appended a bibliography of those items which we to constitute a definitive set of readings on the subject at hand. Pre-History instance was Even before there were computers there was computer chess. The first which played a famous automaton constructed by Baron von Kempclen in 1770, excellent chess. It won most of its games against all comers which supposedly included Napoleon. The automaton consisted of a large box with chess pieces on fashion, top and aproliferation of gear wheels inside, which were shown in magician 1 However, one compartment at a time to the audience before a performance. a skilled (and small) chessplayer was artfullyhidden in the midst ofall this machinery, and this was the actual reason for the "mechanism's" success. In contrast, a genuine piece of science was the electro-mechanical device con- of structed by Torres y Quevedo, a Spanish engineer, in 1890 which was capable mating with king and rook vs. king. Its construction was certainly a marvel of its day. The Dawn few, Shannon In 1950, when computers were becomingavailable to a selccl Claude describing a chess then of Bell Telephone Laboratories wrote an article how Artificial Intelligence 10 0978), 201-214 Copyright © 1978 by North-Holland Publishing Company 202 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Castling in the Square the Harvard Chess Club Battles the Clock and the Competition
    chess.final 10/7/02 8:59 PM Page 44 Castling in the Square The Harvard Chess Club battles the clock and the competition. by paul hoffman n the last sunday in October, last year, four mem- Two dozen kibitzers gathered around Elkies and Turnbull, O bers of the Harvard Chess Club were huddled at the waiting for the hostilities to begin. To commence the match, stone chess tables outside Au Bon Pain in Harvard Turnbull, a soft-spoken man with a red beard, pulled out a pink Square. It was an unseasonably cold morning, and the Square was squirt gun and fired it into the air. Elkies reached out and made not yet bustling. The four woodpushers were playing a series of his first move, developing his king’s knight outside his wall of blitz games, in which each side had only five minutes per game, pawns. It was a modest move, not as aggressive as the more cus- against chess master Murray Turnbull ’71, a 52-year-old Harvard tomary advance of the king pawn or queen pawn. Turnbull re- dropout who for the past two decades has spent every day from sponded by pushing a pawn forward two squares. The two men May through October at the table nearest the sidewalk, eking out were o≠, their hands darting across the board, shifting pieces a living by taking on passersby willing to wager two dollars a and pawns faster than the crowd could follow and banging the game. Turnbull had insisted that the Harvard match take place dual chess clocks that timed their moves.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving: the Role of Teaching Heuristics in Transfer of Learning
    Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2016, 12(3), 655-668 Chess Training and Mathematical Problem- Solving: The Role of Teaching Heuristics in Transfer of Learning Roberto Trinchero University of Turin, ITALY Giovanni Sala University of Liverpool, UK Received 27 October 2015Revised 29 December 2015 Accepted 10 January 2016 Recently, chess in school activities has attracted the attention of policy makers, teachers and researchers. Chess has been claimed to be an effective tool to enhance children’s mathematical skills. In this study, 931 primary school pupils were recruited and then assigned to two treatment groups attending chess lessons, or to a control group, and were tested on their mathematical problem-solving abilities. The two treatment groups differed from each other on the teaching method adopted: The trainers of one group taught the pupils heuristics to solve chess problems, whereas the trainers of the other treatment group did not teach any chess-specific problem-solving heuristic. Results showed that the former group outperformed the other two groups. These results foster the hypothesis that a specific type of chess training does improve children’s mathematical skills, and uphold the idea that teaching general heuristics can be an effective way to promote transfer of learning. Keywords: chess; heuristics; mathematics; STEM education; transfer INTRODUCTION Recently, pupils’ poor achievement in mathematics has been the subject of debate both in the United States (Hanushek, Peterson, & Woessmann, 2012; Richland, Stigler, & Holyoak, 2012) and in Europe (Grek, 2009). The current market requires more graduates in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects than graduates in the humanities.
    [Show full text]